ArticleBMJ open2025
Stage-specific harm in early-stage hospitals in South Korea: a retrospective analysis using the healthcare complaints analysis tool.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo analyse patient complaints from an early-stage hospital in South Korea using the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool, identify harm patterns across care stages and provide insights for resource allocation and risk management.
designRetrospective analysis of patient complaints (22 March 2022-28 June 2024).
settingA newly established general hospital with approximately 700 beds in the metropolitan area of Gyeonggi-do, South Korea, which was established during the COVID-19 pandemic.
participantsA total of 1113 patient complaints comprising 1952 discrete complaint issues were collected, with submissions originating from patients themselves (64%), family members or friends (21%) and individuals with unclear relationships to patients (15%). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures comprised occurrence and severity of patient harm. Secondary outcome measures included distribution of complaints across clinical, management and relationship domains, and identification of healthcare stages with concentrated harm using hotspot analysis and logistic regression.
resultsOf the complaints, 78% did not result in harm. Among those that did, 52%, 40% and 7% were of low, moderate and high severity, respectively. Hotspot analysis indicated that harm was concentrated during diagnosis (stage 2), ward care (stage 3) and operation/procedure (stage 4) stages, with stage 4 exhibiting the highest Pearson residual value of 9.56. Logistic regression indicated that clinical domain complaints had the strongest association with patient harm (OR=32.25, 95% CI=20.88 to 51.01, p<0.001), while the operation/procedure stage exhibited the highest stage-specific risk (OR=30.62, 95% CI=9.80 to 93.93, p<0.001).
conclusionsThis study highlighted the critical care stages in which harm was concentrated, emphasising the need for proactive risk management particularly during operations and procedures. The findings provide valuable insights into resource allocation and underscore the importance of patient complaints in improving healthcare quality and safety across healthcare institutions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.